People have tried to discuss this on this forum but weren't specific enough.
Anyway my interest lies in the late 14th century.

What I'm asking is, were waisted sword grips used in the 14th century? (because I love them ). Anyone who has seen or handled many pieces in museums, gone through manuscripts or art, someone who knows what they are talking about. Please help me!
I know there are more people than just me who are asking the same question.
And this question has gone unanswered (for me at the very least) for too long.

Thanks! to whomever helps me (and others).

P.S. The Ewart Oakeshotte article on here does not help much with dates on the grips.
P.P.S. I hope I didn't seem too angry in this post, I just want some help here. 1 Peter 5:8 - Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Absence of evidence is not necessarily the evedence of
Absence. Ewart Oakeshotte.

As far as I can see, there are two swords on the blog site that could be argued to have waisted grips, namely sword 8 and sword 14. Sword 8 does not date to the 14th century; it's overall appearance looks like a federschwert, and stylistically belongs to no earlier than the 16th century. So that's one sword ruled out.

As for sword 14, its appearance makes me suspicious it is a fake. The pommel looks a bit odd to me, and overall it is visually quite similar to other swords that are known fakes. I have seen fakes that have a partly surviving wooden grip and leather wrap that are alike to this sword. Given these doubts, I would be hesitant to use it as evidence.

I've been thinking about it and, there isn't a definitive line between waisted and tapered grips.
Because many have convex grip taper. And if that is done with a raised ring in the middle it almost looks like a waisted grip, and is much to my liking.1 Peter 5:8 - Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Absence of evidence is not necessarily the evedence of
Absence. Ewart Oakeshotte.

Last edited by Fisher Lobdell on Wed 14 Dec, 2016 7:10 pm; edited 3 times in total

Im surprised no one thought to mention XVIIIa #4 in Oakeshotts, records of the medieval sword.1 Peter 5:8 - Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Absence of evidence is not necessarily the evedence of
Absence. Ewart Oakeshotte.

Pretty sure #8 is a type XIX which I believe do date all the way back to the later 14th century but the side ring suggests it's much younger.Historical fencing on Florida's Treasure Coast!
www.tcfencers.com

Im surprised no one thought to mention XVIIIa #4 in Oakeshotts, records of the medieval sword.

XVIIIa.4 is one of many examples where Oakeshott wanted to provide an earlier date than is truly warranted for a sword. I know why he did so; the cross on the sword is quite commonly associated with 14th century swords, like XVa.1 or the sword attributed to Edward the Black Prince. Likewise, the pommel is a common enough in the 14th century as well. However, the blade of this sword belongs to a later date.

Although Oakeshott gives this sword in Records as an XVIII.a, it could also be classified as an XVIII.c using Oakeshott's alternate classification for the Type XVIII family since the blade of this sword and others like it is far broader than most other XVIII.a swords. As Peter Johnsson comments in the information about Albionís Next Generation Alexandria, all of the antique XVIII.c swords deposited to the Alexandria Arsenal date from 1414 to 1419 AD. Further images from Manuscript Miniatures show that these swords existed as early as 1410 AD, and one manuscript can be dated from circa 1400 to 1425 (which means we assume a date from 1410 to 1425 based upon the presence of the sword unless we can find good evidence of XVIII.c blades from an earlier date). The aforementioned information can be found here: https://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-alexandria-xviiia.htm.

All of this illustrates that while blades of this sort can be found relatively early in the 15th century, circa 1410 or so, there is little evidence to support a 14th century date. The fact that this sword has a waisted grip makes me suspect itís even younger than this, and perhaps belongs more toward the late date Oakeshott gives for the sword.

My overall impression is that waisted swords are so rare on 14th century swords that they represent more of an anomaly, rather than the norm. If I wanted a 14th century long sword, I would go without a waisted grip. It seems too much out of place.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum